Pros
There are some dedicated and hardworking scientists in the company who were fantastic to work with.
Cons
For anyone reading these reviews and assuming they represent isolated complaints from a small number of disgruntled employees, I would urge you to take them seriously. The issues described are not anomalies, but reflect deep-seated problems within the company, and particularly within the chemistry department. The working environment is extremely poor, with minimal to zero support for employees. The chemistry department operates under an authoritarian management style that fosters a culture of fear and anxiety. Although some lower-level managers privately acknowledge the problem, they are generally unwilling to challenge the director. Instead, individuals prefer to protect their own position, leaving their team members to rely on peer support instead. The company’s senior management team are aware of the issue; however, as their own day-to-day working conditions are unaffected, there is little incentive for them to take action. During my time at the company, I witnessed behaviour from some individuals that I would characterise as being bullying, intimidating, dishonest, and discriminatory in nature. I observed colleagues become visibly distressed as a result of their treatment, including instances where individuals were reduced to tears. Several former employees have admitted that part of their reason for leaving was the negative effect the environment had on their mental health. There is also a clear and widely recognised culture of favouritism within the chemistry department. Expectations and standards are not applied consistently, and it is broadly understood that different individuals are subject to different rules. Some employees appear to be actively protected by their line manager (despite appalling behaviour), while others are subject to disproportionate scrutiny and criticism regardless of performance. This inconsistency contributes significantly to low morale and undermines trust in, and respect for, leadership. There is very much a collective sense of “it’s not what you do; it’s who you are” regarding development opportunities or promotions. In relation to career progression and rewards, promotions have been paused for several years, with no clear indication of when this situation will change. During this time, employees have not received cost-of-living increases, despite rising inflation. As a result, staff are expected to take on increased workloads for what amounts to a reduction in pay in real terms. There are also no performance-related bonuses or incentive schemes in place to recognise additional effort or high performance. Feedback and positive recognition are limited, and genuine, unprompted praise is almost non-existent. Consequently, many employees are left uncertain about how their performance is viewed by their line manager or project leader. The recent redundancy process has only served to highlight the spectacular incompetence of those involved in its implementation. Considering the gravity of the situation and the outcomes for those affected, the company should have done everything in its power to ensure that decisions were made fairly, consistently, and without bias. Instead, the process was left in the hands of its most inept managers, with predictable consequences.